9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 419 - HC - CustomsLimitation - The petitioner a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the business of export of iron ore fines had filed shipping bill. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the export duty on iron ore and concentrates is specified at Rs. 300/- per MT. However, the Central Government issued a notification dated 3-5-2007 by way of an exemption in terms whereof iron ore fines of Fe content of 62% and below is subjected to export duty of Rs. 50/- per MT as against the tariff rate of Rs. 300/- per MT. An inspection agency namely M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., had certified the FE content in the iron ore fines exported by the petitioner to be at 61.90%. The petitioner therefore claimed export duty liability at Rs. 50/- per MT in terms of the notification of Government of India dated 3-5-2007. Held that eminently arguable case on merits before CESTAT though reason set out for condonation of delay. Communication gape between petitioner and authorized representative not substantial. Delay condoned on petitioner depositing Rs. 25,000 towards cost for delay.
Issues: Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing COD Application, Export duty liability on iron ore fines, Delay in preferring appeal to CESTAT, Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Analysis: 1. Challenge to Tribunal's Order: The petitioner, a company engaged in the export of iron ore fines, challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the COD Application. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the validity of the Tribunal's decision. 2. Export Duty Liability: The dispute arose regarding the export duty liability on iron ore fines exported by the petitioner. The Central Government had issued an exemption notification specifying a reduced export duty for iron ore fines with a certain Fe content. The petitioner claimed the lower duty rate based on the certification of the Fe content by an inspection agency. However, subsequent testing by the Chemical Examiner revealed a slightly higher Fe content, leading to a demand for differential duty by the authorities. 3. Delay in Preferring Appeal: The petitioner faced a delay of 146 days in preferring an appeal to the CESTAT against the order of the 2nd respondent. The delay was attributed to a communication gap between the petitioner and its authorized representative handling legal matters. The Court considered the reasons for the delay and whether they were substantial enough to warrant condonation. 4. Condonation of Delay: Despite finding the reasons for the delay not substantial, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had a strong case on merits before the CESTAT. Considering the delay was not excessive and the petitioner's arguable case, the Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay on reasonable terms. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a specified amount towards costs for the delay within a stipulated time frame to proceed with the appeal. 5. Decision: After hearing arguments from both parties, the High Court allowed the writ petition, condoning the delay in filing the appeal to CESTAT. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit costs for the delay, following which the CESTAT would consider the appeal in accordance with the law. Failure to comply with the deposit condition would result in the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court made no order as to costs in this matter.
|
